Bishop Michael Jackels of the Catholic Diocese of Wichita on Tuesday testifies in favor of legislation to repeal the death penalty. He said a life sentence without the possibility of parole can guarantee public safety. Bills to abolish the death penalty are being considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kansas has had capital punishment since 1994, making death by lethal injection the possible penalty for some murders. But the state has yet to execute anyone under it.

The proposed death penalty repeals would allow for a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Those sentenced to death before the effective date of the bill would still face the death penalty.

Comments

Big mistake. Without the ultimate penalty there is no real deterrent. Those who argue that it is not a deterrent to not factor in that someone who pays the price will never commit another crime. Instant deterrent.

To be senteneced to Life without the possibility of parole leaves other inmates and guards at risk of losing their life every day. Not to mention the general public should the convictee escape.

Those who argue the penalty is not applied fairly ignore basic facts about the application of the death penalty. The same holds true for those who say it is unevenly applied to minorities also do not disclose the facts.

Here are some of the facts to chew on:
After re-instatement of the death penalty in 1976 the defendant in that case was a white male who killed another white male.
Shortly after that case the next defendant was a white male who killed a white female.
In order to be eligible for the death penalty another felony must be present. (rape & murder, robbery & murder )
The 2 phases are seperate - conviction first, penalty second.

As a hard-core liberal I say give 'em a fair trial, and if found guilty and sentenced to die give them another shot at due process and then push the button if found guilty.

For the rest of you - then you should argue for parole with the condition that you will allow them to live in your home, and will share their fate should they re-commit any crime. Otherwise you have no case.

There are plenty of studies that show the death penalty isn't much of a deterrent (or any really). But the main point is that it's much more expensive because of the lengthy appeals process (10 years or more) and all of the appeals are automatic. So we're paying more money for something that doesn't do much to deter the crimes.

And I don't get how saying someone should spend the rest of their life in jail without chance of parole is equivalent to saying they should spend the rest of their life in my house for no apparent reason at all.

There are legitimate arguments in favor of the death penalty, but you haven't listed any of them christie.

"How can it be more expensive… just march them out of the court room and shoot them. Do about three of them and the rest will realise you mean business. Yes, it would then be a deterrent."

It would also result in a ridiculous amount of innocent people dying.

What we must realize is that due to the severe nature of the punishment, an adequate appeals process is not only a responsible thing to do... It is the only civilized thing to do.

If a jury convicts you of murder and puts you in prison for life and ten years later a new technology proves you're innocent... No eternal damage done. You can be released. Yes, you lost ten years of your life... But, you still can live. If the same scenario played out and you were sentenced to death... You have paid the ultimate price for someone else's crime. This is not only unethical, but also immoral and perverse.

So, due to the irreversible nature of the punishment, these lengthy appeals will continue on as long as we keep this penalty in play. And, as long as appeals continue, court costs will continue to climb and judicial red tape will continue to clutter the court system.

At some point we must remove emotion from this and realize that two facts remain... The death penalty is a costlier process than life in prison... And, the death penalty does not, in fact, deter crime or the criminals committing the crime.

Actually, capital crimes do go down in states where the death penalty is ENFORCED. KS doesn't enforce the current death penalty law , so this is another soft issue, waste of time and public funds and all of that. Next, our philosopher kings and queens in Topuke-a will be conducting hearings on bubble gum on sidewalk laws, bestiality, and what not.

Tax money should not be spent on feeding a convicted killer, breakfast, lunch and dinner day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year and providing automatic appeals. As long as the murderer is alive, it places others at risk.

So if the main point is simply that there are automatic appeals causing more expense, then that is the problem, not the administration of capital punishment.

Further, although I believe the “deterrent argument” is irrelevant in determining capital punishment, the argument presented by christie is certainly valid because once the killer is removed forever from society then he/she is deterred from committing another murder.

Feature, Speicher, that lengthy and costly appeals of the death penalty are only there because of anti-capital punishment shyster lawyers in the first place because that was their whole plan to make it outrageously costly to 'add an arguement', con. These people would be against it even if it was 100% cost effective, fair, and class blind.

The #1 reason why we had capital punishment in the first place is because we didn't have money to build prisons on the frontier, but we still needed a justice system. That time is long past.

. Explain why the civilized East Coast city slickers had prisons and the death penalty on the books during them thar wild west days, and why did the settled frontier build prisons and keep the DP? Europe, long filled up and with prisons, had the death penalty in nearly every country until the mid 20th century, and many there want to bring it back, except for their governments and hand-wringing lawyers.

You need to be a bit more creative with your dreamed up historical reasons con the ultimate penalty.

We've had the death penalty for thousands of years, yet people still murder: no deterrent.
Those who say just line them up and shoot them, what about when innocents are executed? Do we just line up the cops and prosecutors and shoot them?
I'm all for life without parole. At least we can let the innocents loose when we realize we've f#@ked up.

"Big mistake. Without the ultimate penalty there is no real deterrent. Those who argue that it is not a deterrent to not factor in that someone who pays the price will never commit another crime. Instant deterrent."

There are zero scientific studies that show capital punishment is a deterrent. In fact, almost every study shows nothing but negative aspects to capital punishment.

I have no problem with you holding a strong opinion on this issue but at least try to avoid stating your opinion as a fact. Your assertion is incorrect.

Stealing horses was a capital offense on the frontier. As was arson (of any type, not just the type that caused a death), rape, murder (obviously), as well as accessory to murder, and "maiming with malice aforethought". There were also numerous offenses that had corporal punishment (lashes, putting people in the stocks, etc). And even earlier on they had indentured servitude (basically temporary slavery) as a punishment for many crimes that would have probably merited a few years in prison under today's laws, but of course they didn't really have a prison to put them in so they sold them out to people.

These all have been rolled back to where the only Capital offenses left in this country are murder and treason, and while some of them have been overturned in the courts, many more of them were changed due to changes in the penal code (differentiating 2nd and 1st degree murders, changing in the types of punishment, etc).

The bottom line is that justice is a necessity in any society, but the way we mete it out is often determined more by our standard of living and our views on what it means to be "civilized" than some kind of fixed punishments that do not change over time.

how can a person duly convicted and executed commit another capital crime.
The fact is that they can't.

Prove otherwise and I'll buy your zero scientific study."

"Cappy (Anonymous) says…
christie,
Duh, deterrent means it prevents OTHER people from committing a crime."

Ah you beat me to it Cappy. Your understanding of the concept of deterrence is wrong Christie and besides that, even if you were right... my response would be that sentencing them to life in prison without parole would just as easily prevent them from committing another crime on society and it would do so for much less money and much more humanely.

I challenge you to point to any respected scientific study that shows a deterrence due to capital punishment more so then that of life in prison. Oh, well, I will help you out... there aren't any!